Ron Paul on More Troops: Why Trump’s ISIS Strategy Will Fail

After nearly 14 years of US military action in Iraq, significant parts of the country remain occupied by an ISIS that did not exist before the 2013 US “liberation.” The occupation that followed the 2013 US invasion of Iraq fueled the resentment that led to the rise of militants, which in turn led Washington to believe it needed to continue its military presence in Iraq, which led to the creation of more militants. It’s a never-ending cycle that it seems will be continued under President Trump’s new strategy to defeat ISIS. No one benefits from this cycle except the Beltway defense contractors and think tanks. More in today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

12 thoughts on “Ron Paul on More Troops: Why Trump’s ISIS Strategy Will Fail”

  1. And so, it’s sounds like Ron Paul is trying to place the blame for Trump’s admin on Pence!
    At least that was about it at the 14 minute mark, and I don’t have the patience to wait for some real criticism of Trump that probably didn’t come. Just more faith in Trump.

    Although, it’s pretty obvious that Ron doesn’t understand the Iraq oil situation when he says the US isn’t going to own it. And it looks like it’s too deep to understand for this antiwar site. Anybody who wants to understand better, lemme know.

    And one thing for sure, Ron doesn’t understand why the big demonization and push against Russia. And even if he did he wouldn’t be able to state it truthfully. He would be labelled a traitor for revealing US foreign policy.

    Nope, there’s no good going to come out of listening to Ron Paul and his sidekick he winds up to ask him questions.

  2. With all due respects to idiots, you’re a very confused person. Here’s why:
    Obama wouldn’t use the term, ‘Islam’ or ‘the Islamic world’ or ‘Muslims’. He understood perfectly well that the fight was against ‘radical Islam’.

    And there were very good reasons why Obama wouldn’t use those terms. It was simply because he knew that to use those terms would be to frame the enemy incorrectly. And doing that would create more enemies. He had the foresight to understand that the US didn’t want to alienate the Muslim world.

    But apparently you aren’t capable of understanding that? Is it too complicated for you? Or is it really just something to do with your hate for Obama because of his skin colour that makes him uppity?

    We need to be more proactive against pigs like you. You’re a waste of good air. Either that or show us you can understand the simple stuff?

    1. I thought Trump did as well as he could with a Neocon manipulated Republican electorate.

      Whether knowingly or not, Trump was able to win Republicans and Independents by appealing to both groups.

      Voters don’t seem to reward clear arguments. They seem to vote on emotions. I know of an Iraq War opponent who voted for Kasich in the primary – my own father. His explanation was that Kasich appeared calmer.

      As for pinning candidates down, the media was just focused on destroying Trump. It did not want Trump to communicate new ideas, so it did not ask real questions. The mainstream media today is just a group of propaganda orgs. Similarly, it doesn’t want Ron Paul to speak.

      1. It’s at least out that Obama backed ISIS. Trump did a lot of good with his willingness to break the mould.

        Tulsi Gabbard is making a name for herself on the issue.

        I would love for Americans to be better educated about real issues, but part of democracy seems to require that voters be kept ignorant lest they wield real power :p

  3. It’s positive that Trump demands someone other than just US tax payers support the empire.

    I agree I don’t like Trump’s position on Iran. And the Syrian safe zones have always been a bad idea. Raimondo was an early critic of them, btw, as were others here I’m sure.

    You mentioned China in the other thread: Did you see how China is ready to negotiate on N. Korea? Things could turn out well for Trump. Or we could have nuclear war. I agree I don’t like everything Trump is doing, but he is an improvement over McCain/Obama/Rubio/Cruz/Hillary/etc.

    1. I agree with all you say. Trump could partially appease both Russia (eg. Ukraine) and the Gulf States, though I was hoping he would pursue a somewhat different foreign policy.

      With regard to paying for empire, I was hoping they’d end up revolting and just defending themselves as sovereign polities are wont to do. I rather like the idea of a multipolar world. I don’t think the US has any inherent motivation to war with anyone, so I’d rather leave the global domination to others. The way we’re positioned, we should be motivated towards almost complete isolation, though much trading and tourism.

    2. Making up shit like Hillary giving Russia a choice of submission or nuclear war is not helpful. Bring your mind back to reality and stop acting like a southern hillbilly.

  4. Trump is the ‘Poster-Boy’ for Empire.

    ‘Calling-out’ the Empire as an Empire is the only way the people will ever accomplish anything. [period]

Comments are closed.